Tag Archives: Gun Control

AxXiom For Liberty Live! Friday Dec. 28th 6-8 PM

a4l 55Kaye Beach

Dec. 28, 2012

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Live!  6-8 PM Central

Howard and I have a jam packed, pro-liberty line up for you tonight!

Larry Pratt, Okla.. Sen. Patrick Anderson and Joe Wolverton, II!

Listen Live-LogosRadioNetwork.com  click ‘Listen’ then choose your Internet speed.  Logos Radio Network is a listener supported, free speech radio network and your contributions are vital but you do not have to be a subscriber in order to hear the show.

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America.

Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for over 30 years.  The GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their Second Amendment freedom to keep and bear arms. Congressman Ron Paul describes Gun Owners of America as “The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.” 

Website http://gunowners.org/

Larry Pratt is a frequent guest on many national radio and TV programs.  Following the Sandy Hook school tragedy, he made an appearance on CNN with Piers Morgan who took the opportunity to try and demean Mr. Pratt’s views but ended up sparking outrage instead.  Tonight we will talk with Mr. Pratt about the incident and more importantly, what Second Amendment advocates should do to protect their rights in the wake of gun control hysteria and potential legislation intended to curtail our Second Amendment rights.

OK. Sen. Patrick Anderson

Next up, we are very pleased to be speaking with Oklahoma Sen. Patrick Anderson, Republican Senator from OK District 19 since 2004.  Sen Anderson will be telling us about his bill, SB23, designed to protect Oklahomans from property-rights busting policy based on UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid, said his Senate Bill 23 is based on a bill that was passed by Alabama lawmakers last year and is aimed in part at cutting off state support for the groups pushing limits on property owner rights.

As a farmer, Anderson said he is concerned about the federal government – pushed by the U.N.’s agenda of sustainability – forcing rules on a wide variety of things, including the creation of dust and how land can be used.

“There’s a place for all that, but we also need to make sure we’re not infringing on the property owners’ rights to use their own land,” Anderson said.

The first and best steward of how land should be used is the private owner, he said.

Oklahoma senator’s bill targets controversial U.N. Agenda 21 plan

Joe Wolverton, II

And we are also pleased and honored to have Joe Wolverton, II to give us the heads up on legislation and policies that will effect some of our most cherished legal and natural rights.

Since 2004, Joe Wolverton, II has been a featured contributor to The New American magazine.  He was a practicing constitutional law attorney until 2009 and his articles on the Constitution, states’ rights, the NDAA, drones and surveillance have appeared in national and international publications, including lewrockell.com the Tenth Amendment Center, Infowars, and Business Insider among others.  Joe Wolverton II is a national speaker on constitutional issues and is a professor of American Government.

This ought to be a great show!

Your questions or comments are always welcome!

CALL IN LINE 512-646-1984

Miss a show?  Get the Podcast!  Archives here

Other ways to listen;

Listen to Logos Radio Network on SHOUTcast

iTunes-AxXiom For Liberty and other great Logos Radio Network shows can be accessed by iPhone and iPad on iTunes!  Just search iTunes for “AxXiom For Liberty” or “Logos Radio Network”

Advertisements

Feinstein Gun Control Bill Summary

anti gunKaye Beach

Dec. 27, 2012

From The Blaze;

Sen. Feinstein Posts Proposed ‘Assault Weapons’ Legislation — and It Includes Provisions on Handguns and ‘Grandfathered’ Weapons

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein promised to on the first day of new the Congress introduce legislation that would ban so-called assault weapons and certain types of ammunition.

Now, the Californian senator has posted a summary of this legislation that would be introduced in 2013, showing more details about the provisions that she would hope would be included. And it doesn’t just have to do with what she calls “assault” weapons.

Read more from The Blaze

Here is the summary;

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons

Stay informed

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.

To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
  • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

Examiner.com: No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Kaye Beach

Oct. 26, 2012, updated Oct. 29, 2012

I hate to be an absolutist but after years of studying the International Association of Chiefs of Police, it is my firm opinion that any Sheriff candidate associated with the organization is pretty much a no go.  There are a number of police associations to choose from and a choice to band together with this one is out of them all has to be the product of a pronounced ideology that for many Americans, especially pro Second Amendment Americans, is repulsive.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, was also critical of the IACP, which he told Cybercast News Service “represents a lot of appointed police chiefs from a lot of totalitarian and dictatorship countries where human rights are constantly violated and freedom of the press doesn’t even exist.”

“There isn’t a gun-control proposal that this organization hasn’t supported. . .” 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/international-police-chiefs-advocate-more-gun-control

I think that any officer of the law that does not trust law abiding citizens with a gun, doesn’t deserve our trust.

This excellent article posted today at the Examiner.com takes a look at the latest IACP anti-gun Resolutions and points out the fact that Sheriff John Whetsel was a past President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.  Whetsel, as IACP President, in 1995,  actively worked to suppress right to carry legislation in the states including Oklahoma.

No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Here is  1995 internal IACP strategic plan document to undermine or eliminate right to carry legislation.

The plan was to kill the bills if possible and if not to encumber the legislation with a number of burdensome requirements to deter lawful citizens from obtaining a permit.
For example, Item 5 on page 6 of the document suggests making it a criminal offense, a felony rather than a misdemeanor,  to carry with an expired permit.
Another example is item #14 on pg 7. Require a separate CCW permit for each individual weapon and limit permit holders to one gun purchase per month.

President Clinton thanked John Whetsel personally in 1994 for his help in passing the Brady and Crime Bills.  The “Crime Bill” that Clinton makes reference to is actually ‘The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act’  This was the Act that established a ban on “Assault Weapons” which lasted from 1994 to 2004.  Clinton Whetsel 1994

The Examiner.com looks into this a little deeper here

I have been barking about the International Association of Chiefs of Police for years.

The IACP is an international, non governmental organization accredited by the United Nations and is a ‘Member of the UN POLICE COMMUNITY’ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/sites/police/community.shtml

This organization has been instrumental in bringing about profound changes to our nation politically, technologically and culturally and not necessarily for the better.  They are the thought leaders, the change agents in American law enforcement.

You would be hard pressed to find even one of the Ten Amendments to the  US Constitution that the policies pushed by the IACP has not insulted but one of the most telling positions taken by the organization is their stance on the Second Amendment.

Steven Spingola, a well respected former homicide detective sums the IACP up very well as;

“a global organization that views the American Constitution as an obstructionist document.”

The IACP has a long history of anti-Second Amendment stances.

They have actively supported every piece of gun control legislation since the 1960’s. The organization is long time, bitter enemies with the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

IACP President, Quinn Tamm,  in 1971 actually said that a brick was a safer weapon for self defense that a handgun.

Nothing has changed since then. (See the 2012 Resolutions issued by the IACP)

For a litany of anti-gun antics from the IACP in recent times, read this.

The IACP opposes;

•expansion of concealed carry
•50-caliber rifles
•private sales of gun
•gun shows
•so-called “assault” weapons

The IACP Supports;

•Limiting the number of handguns law abiding citizens can purchase
•five-day “cooling off” or waiting periods
•Legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.
•State, local, and tribal governments mandating specific storage methods of guns
•Repealing  the Tiahrt Amendment, a federal law that protects sensitive federal gun trace data from general access.
•Gun surrender programs

This international organization is highly political.  Some of the activities of the IACP include lobbying and testifying before Congress, doing research and policy development, setting professional standards and providing accreditation for US police departments.  The IACP promotes and writes guidelines for police technology, trains and educates law enforcement as well as managing and administering numerous programs for the federal government.

But Whetsel asserts that law enforcement is not about politics.

If that is so, why choose to forge ties with an incredibly political organization like the IACP?

John Whetsel at the 2011 IACP Conference

Sheriff Whetsel has a deep and longstanding and continuing relationship with the IACP. He attends IACP yearly conferences and is a member of the IACP Executive Committee and an active member of at least one IACP subcommittee.

And it is all very convenient to say it is not about politics when he is under pressure to defend his ideology that as the Sheriff absolutely does matter!  I have spent many hours at the state capitol and have witnessed the Sheriff’s armed lobbyists working diligently on highly political matters and the Sheriff.  As you can imagine the Sheriff has quite a lot of pull up there, you know, where they make laws that impact the free exercise of your rights.  And Whetsel, like the IACP,  does not have a reputation of  being very concerned with protecting any of those Ten Amendments.

The IACP Denies Large Donation from Taser Intl. Associated Foundation Buys Influence

Kaye Beach

Oct 24, 2012

USA Today published this story, ‘Police group receives donation from Taser stun-gun maker’ on Oct 22, 2012.  It is  about the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) accepting a 300,000 donation from the foundation associated with Taser International which raises serious concerns since this organization has great influence over police department policy nation wide.

The IACP is an international, non governmental organization. Some of the activities of the IACP include submitting legislation, lobbying and testifying before Congress, doing research and policy development, setting professional standards and providing accreditation for US police departments.  The IACP promotes and writes guidelines for police technology,  trains and educates law enforcement as well as managing and administering numerous programs for the federal government.

Of course the IACP denies that the money curries any favor with them but consider what a notorious anti-gun foundation bought for their cause with the IACP in 2007.  (below)

Police group receives donation from Taser stun-gun maker

by Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Published: 10/22/2012 12:19am

WASHINGTON — The nation’s largest association of police chiefs, which has advised thousands of its members on the appropriate use of stun guns, accepted a $300,000 donation from the foundation associated with Taser International, the biggest supplier of stun guns to law enforcement.

The contribution to the International Association of Chiefs of Police Foundation (IACP), the organization’s philanthropic arm, represents the latest in a series of controversial relationships Taser has established with police, the primary source of the Arizona-based company’s lucrative business.

. . .IACP and Taser officials said they found nothing wrong with the gift. . .But law enforcement and criminal justice analysts said the donation raises questions about the IACP’s ability to engage in future reviews involving the technology and whether the contribution represented a de-facto endorsement.

Read more

In 2007, another Foundation  supplied the IACP with hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The IACP, with support from the Joyce Foundation, a notorious anti-gun organization, held a national firearm violence summit in Chicago, “to address the issue fully and create a viable national strategy” for gun control.

Press release http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1470&issue_id=42008

The Joyce Foundation got what they paid for as their anti-gun philosophy has been enshrined in IACP policy which informs many police departments across the nation.  (See the 2007 IACP Great Lakes Summit on Reducing Gun Violence.  Link)

“The Joyce Foundation has pumped tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of gun ban groups over the years. The Violence Policy Center (VPC), an unashamed promoter of a total ban on handguns, collected more than $1 million of Joyce money just in 2005 and 2006. In 2000, the Joyce Foundation paid a VPC advisor and former Handgun Control, Inc. board member to edit a “Second Amendment Symposium” issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. That slim volume contains nearly half the anti-individual rights articles ever published on the Second Amendment.

The IACP newsletter proudly notes that the Joyce Foundation has “made more than $30 million in grants to groups seeking public health solutions that offer the promise of reducing gun deaths and injuries in America.”

This year, the Joyce Foundation invested heavily in IACP. They paid IACP over $500,000 to host “The Great Lakes States Summit on Gun Violence,” and then to issue the report from the conference. That comes out to nearly $11,000 per page, but the Joyce Foundation got what it paid for. . .”

Chris W. Cox, Follow the Money, Nov. 15, 2007  wwwnraila.org

The IACP hasn’t been resting on its laurels since 2007 either.  In 2011 the organization, in conjunction with the Joyce Foundation,  produced this guidebook;  Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities Leadership Guide for Law Enforcement on Effective strategies and Programs

http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/GunViolenceReductionGuide2011.pdf

The IACP also provides this eye popping checklist of goals and tasks to help law enforcement agencies measure their progress in the IACP’s recommended gun control efforts.

http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/GVR_page-2_TAS-Planning-Guide.pdf

There has been a great paradigm shift in our nation since 9-11 that spans all agencies of government.  This shift affects every aspect of our lives and has practically decimated the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  US citizens, regardless of their political persuasion, are united in astonishment as they witness the slash and burn abrogation of one cherished right after another.

There is no sector of our society left untouched by the new paradigm and each has its own specialists attending to the transformation in their particular realm.  In the realm of policing, it is the IACP who is in charge of nurturing and tending this transformation.

REAL ID-Great for Gun Control and a whole lot more!

Kaye Beach

Oct. 16, 2012

Prescient words from 2008;

The long-term plan for REAL ID is to force its biometric ID functions on federal, state, local and private entities for all transactions. Thus, ID confirmation by a distant bureaucracy becomes permission for essential daily activities including banking, doctor visits, transit, school attendance and purchases — including guns.

. . .By participating in REAL ID, Pennsylvanians will be subjected to scrutiny by a host of federal agencies with every swipe of a REAL ID card. This is de facto gun registration, only worse. Once a gun buyer is identified, other information such as military service, purchases, rentals, travel, and medical history will be easily cross-referenced and subjected to interpretation. It’s inevitable that politicized standards will emerge that can be used to deny Pennsylvanians the right to keep and bear arms — everyone except violent criminals and politicians’ bodyguards.

Read more

Yesterday was the deadline for states to notify the Dept. of Homeland Security as to whether or not they will be in material compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005.

The deadline for compliance with the REAL ID Act has been moved up three times since the law was passed.  Now we have almost reached the final deadline.

DHS expressed confidence at the end of August this year that all states would be in significant compliance with the law by Jan. 15 2013, the final deadline for state compliance for REAL ID.

“All 56 states have submitted some documentation of their status with respect to the material compliance benchmarks or “elements” of REAL ID to DHS since 2009. On the basis of the total dataset of states reporting, all states meet or commit to meet 83 percent of the material compliance benchmarks, which DHS believes may understate state progress.”

Americans have taken note of the fact that demands for ID and even the swiping of their driver’s license has exploded.  Now that resistance by the states to the national/international ID card has been largely overcome – watch out!  REAL ID will be increasingly required for just about every thing you need, including guns.

This is what REAL ID was made for.

Remember 25 states passed either a law or resolution prohibiting the implementation of REAL ID, including the great state of Oklahoma.  But they have just about pulled it off anyways.  Oklahoma is a mere 1 benchmark away from material compliance.  And other states are seeing “stars”

Back in 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns were already smacking their lips at the prospect of using REAL ID for gun control.

Recommendation 3: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should require REAL ID-compliant identification for all gun purchases after December 1, 2014.  read more

One little known fact about REAL ID is that there is no statutory limit on “official purposes” that the REAL ID can be required for. (There are currently three official purposes; boarding a commercial airliner, entering a federal building and nuclear facility)  What this means is that the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security has unfettered authority to add anything she likes to official purposes that require a REAL ID.  That could be guns, ammo, prescriptions . . . anything.

Read more about REAL ID

REAL ID- MORE Than Just Drivers License Control and Expanding Rapidly

Could UN arms treaty infringe on US Constitution?

Kaye Beach

This is something to watch.

 

See Fox News’ video with Larry Prat

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1719546416001/

From Gun Owners of America  

UN Gun Grabbers Hard at Work Against Your Gun Rights
Even as Americans prepare to celebrate Independence Day, UN bureaucrats are hard at work plotting to take away your gun rights.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty, which is in the final stages of being drafted, is a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to impose radical gun control on America citizens.
What can U.S. gun owners expect from the treaty? For starters, the treaty could:
* Require the registration and licensure of American firearms;
* Ban large categories of firearms;
* Require the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms;
* Define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license, and;
* Require “microstamping” of ammunition.
What’s more, the treaty could also be self-executing, meaning it would achieve its anti-gun objectives whether or not implementing legislation was passed by Congress.
The battle is heating up, and the media are starting to take notice. Just today, GOA ’s Larry Pratt appeared on Fox News with Megyn Kelly to discuss the UN treaty. You can view the video here.
Gun Owners of America has rallied the Senate opposition to this global gun grab. GOA worked with Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) to get other Senators on record opposing the treaty. We are also pushing legislation to defund the Obama administration’s role in pushing the UN gun control agenda.
Negotiations on the treaty will continue through the summer, a time when many Americans are not necessarily focused on politics. But we can’t let up the pressure fighting this backdoor gun ban attempt by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and international gun grabbers.
Thanks to your support, GOA will continue to lead the fight against the Arms Trade Treaty. Click here to help GOA defeat the UN gun control agenda.
And as we celebrate liberty and the birth of our nation, please have a safe and happy Independence Day.

Oklahoma: House passes bill to prevent political violence

Kaye Beach

April 28, 2011

Senate Bill 287  passed the House Tuesday 69 to 23.

See House  votes

The Broken Arrow Ledger reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that would make it a felony to willfully and knowingly enter a restricted area where state officials are being provided protection by the Department of Public Safety has passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

Senate Bill 285, by state Sen. Kim David and state Rep. Mike Ritze, would also make it a felony to enter a restricted area to engage in violence or disorderly conduct and specifically mentions the Governor’s Mansion.

Read More

The bill says it ” shall be unlawful” to

1.  Willfully and knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the Governor, any member of the immediate family of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, or other state official being provided protection by the Department of Public Safety is or will be temporarily visiting;

2.  Willfully and knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds the use of which is restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national or state significance

Also unlawful would be to  “Willfully and knowingly, enter with the intent to impede or to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions in or within close proximity to any building or grounds” or to “or to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in or within close proximity to any building or grounds”

SB285 version, votes, amendment etc.

Reading this bill, I would be afraid to get any where near the Governor! And this is likely, exactly the point. If  you want to make sure you don’t get into  trouble, stay the heck away from the Governor!  Nice. .

So much for access, but hey!  there’s always e-Government.  It is safe sanitary and makes those annoying citizens ever so easy to ignore.  Just hit “delete” and Buh Bye.. 

“I think it is important in light of the Arizona shooting of a U.S. Congresswoman to ensure the safety of public officials,” Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, said

The Arizona shooting  prompted a variety of  legislative proposals for the purpose of better  safeguarding officials.

Less than 24 hours after the Arizona shooting that killed 6 and critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords  Rep Robert Brady from Pennsylvania was promising to introduce legislation “making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.” according to CNN

Read More

Video interview with Rep. Brady here.

Some legislators like Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, reacted by  focusing on language that they perceived as threatening;

A good place to start a more civil dialog would be for my Republican colleagues in the House to change the name of the bill they have introduced to repeal health care reform. The bill, titled the “Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act,” was set to come up for a vote this week, but in the wake of Gabby’s shooting, it has been postponed at least until next week.

Read More

One South Carolina legislator wanted to require Universities to turn over the records of “disruptive” or “threatening” students that drop out of school.  The article doesn’t say who the records would be turned over to but presumably it would be the police.

Read More

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

Read More

Other reactions were more predictable:

Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

Arizona Shooting Prompts Bloomberg to Renew Battle Against Illegal Guns

Republicans too

Peter King, a GOP Congressman from New York, announced new anti-gun legislation in the wake of the Arizona shooting:

“Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.”

Read more

Pastor Unloads on Chief Citty

This letter is sent to you in response to Bryan Dean’s January 17 article in the Oklahoman:  “Oklahoma City Police Chief Laments Criminals’ Access to Military-Style Guns.”

Pastor Tom Vineyard
Open Letter to Chief Bill Citty

January 19, 2011

Dear Chief Citty:

I want to start this letter by saying thank you for your 33 years of service in law enforcement.  Having personally been the victim of a violent crime, I cannot emphasize enough how grateful I am to all those who put their lives on the line every day in order to keep the citizenry safe.

Since 1985, the members of Windsor Hills Baptist Church have had the privilege of honoring city, county, and state law enforcement officers on our annual Law and Order Sunday.  By our conservative estimation, we have honored approximately 300 such officers, of which at least  75 have been from the Oklahoma City Police Department.  We even made efforts this last fall to invite Officer Katie Lawson in order to honor her.

I am writing this letter because of the January 16 article written by Bryan Dean that was printed in the January 17 Oklahoman.  There are some things in the article that you were quoted as stating that I feel need to be addressed.

Mr. Dean stated in the article that you see “no practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or similar weapon.”  A few paragraphs later you said, “There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day.  They [law enforcement] are outgunned.”

With all due respect, Chief Citty, I would like to point out a few things about the article and your comments in it.

It needs to be clarified that there is a great difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle.  To place both in the same group is incorrect and misleading.

The Free Online Encyclopedia defines an assault rifle as a “military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire.”

The definition goes on to state that “assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies.  Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare.”

Please note that the U.S. M16, NOT the AR-15, is included on the list of Military/Assault rifles.

The website NSSF.org additionally explains that sporting rifles based on the AR-15 cosmetically look like military rifles but do not function the same way that Military/Assault rifles do.

“AR” stands for Armalite rifle, not “assault rifle.”  NSSF.org states, “AR-15 ‘style’ rifles are NOT assault weapons or rifles.  An assault rifle is fully automatic – a machine gun.”

The article goes on to state that the term “assault weapon” is a political term created by California
anti-gun legislators in order to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980’s.

Additionally, NSSF states that the AR-15 style rifles fire “only one round with each pull of the trigger.  Versions of the modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchases.”

“AR-15 style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most
cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.”

Chief, may I respectfully remind you that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution assures the right and responsibility of individuals to protect themselves, their family, and their property:   “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

May I also respectfully remind you that the Constitution of our great state of Oklahoma clearly states in Section II-26:   “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

As a Christian and a pastor, I feel it my duty to also respectfully remind you that it is the God-given right and responsibility of every individual to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Abraham armed his trained servants in Genesis 14:15 in order to recover Lot, his family, and his goods as well as everything else from Sodom.  Abraham was just one man in a strange land.

David armed himself with the sword of Goliath in 1 Samuel 21:9.  By 1 Samuel 25:13, every one of David’s men was armed with a sword.

When Nehemiah and the men of Jerusalem went to rebuilding the wall, they each had their sword girded by their side, working in the work with one hand and holding their weapon with the other. (Nehemiah 4:17-18)

Even the Lord Jesus Christ instructed His disciples who did not have a sword to go and buy one.  (Luke 22:36)

This is just a few of the many examples that the Bible presents, from Abraham to Christ, of people who armed themselves with the preferred weapon of their time, the sword.  We could very easily say that it was the AR-15 of their day.

Mr. Dean stated that you see “no practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or similar weapon.”  Again, with all due respect, Chief Citty, you have obviously never been the victim of a violent crime.

In just a few days, sir, will be the sixth anniversary of my family being robbed in our home while we were missionaries in Africa.  Every day since then, when I look in the mirror to brush my teeth, wash my face, shave, or comb my hair, I see what I call my trophy from Africa, a scar on my forehead where I suffered a skull fracture from a rifle that was used on me while I was fighting to defend my family against five armed men who broke into our home.  I nearly lost my hearing and my ear in the attack, and still have daily headaches to remind me of it.

Please understand that when they entered our home, we were unarmed.  The law there in that country prohibited citizens from possessing firearms of any kind.

We cooperated with the thieves and even went so far as to show them where things were so that they could take what they wanted and then be on their way.  For reasons we still do not know, they were unsatisfied with what we had and proceeded to tell us that they would kill our children if we did not give them more money.  Chief, all that I had left that I could do to protect the lives of my children was to fight with my hands.  It was not enough.  To borrow your expression, I was “outgunned.”

Again, with all due respect, sir, I beg to differ with you that THERE IS a practical reason why someone needs an AR-15 or a similar weapon.  If you and your family were ever robbed by someone who was armed while you were unarmed, you would understand.

You used the term “unscrupulous gun sellers.”  How is it unscrupulous to engage in commerce?  Are you implying that those who sold the gun did it with the intention of him shooting a police officer?

Can you not see that to raise the restrictions on firearms such as the AR-15 is simply to take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but not out of the hands of the bad guys?

You stated that Officer Lawson was outgunned.  I would like to ask why?  From what I understand in talking to police officers, they are permitted to carry shotguns and even AR-15’s in their vehicles.  Did she not have one?  Is your department underfunded and unable to provide each officer on duty with a shotgun and AR-15?  If so, may I help you in a fund raising effort to provide each on-duty officer with a shotgun and AR-15?  I am confident that with the multitude of law-abiding citizens who are thankful for law enforcement that we could easily raise the needed funds to properly arm our law enforcement officers.

According to the December 31, 2010, article that Bryan Dean wrote, “Oklahoma City officer recounts night she was ambushed,” Mr. Dean reported that police carry their own AR-15 rifles in their cars, but that Lawson “never had a chance to retrieve hers.”  So it is obvious that Officer Lawson was not completely outgunned; she was only taken by the element of surprise.  What law could be passed to stop such a crime if the death penalty is already in effect in Oklahoma?  The answer is NOT to prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing sporting rifles such as the AR-15.

The question was asked, “How does a teenager get an AR-15?”  While an 18 year old is still a teenager, an 18 year old is also old enough to drive, to vote, and even to go serve our country in Iraq
or Afghanistan.  It is understandable that since the majority of 18 year olds are law-abiding citizens it is legal for them to purchase a firearm if they can afford it and so desire to do.

Chief, it is unacceptable that the military would trust some 18 year olds enough to send them overseas with a fully-automatic weapon in their hand to defend themselves and their country while at the same time you want to take semi-automatic sporting rifles out of those same law-abiding citizens’ hands in order to “make it harder for criminals to get such weapons.”

The article states that the gun was tracked to a dealer in Tulsa.  The original sale was a legal sale. The weapon was tracked to its source.  The shooter was found.  Were you able to put it in his hand when he committed the crime?  I believe the correct answer is yes.  Adding extra hoops for law-abiding citizens to have to jump through will not keep criminals from breaking the law by shooting or killing someone.  It makes absolutely no sense to cumber law-abiding citizens with even more regulation and further hinder them from protecting their families from those who have no regard for the law and will get and use guns even if they were completely outlawed and banned.  It has been said that everywhere that gun regulation has been implemented, it is eventually followed by gun confiscation.  Simply look across the pond to our friends in England and to those in the southern hemisphere in Australia as proof of this.  Please understand that I am not implying this of you personally, but the reason that our founders included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution was to protect the citizens from a government overstepping its bounds.

I challenge you to research the statistics in places such as Chicago, Washington D.C., Australia, and Great Britain where guns are prohibited.  You will find that crimes with firearms still take place.  More restrictive laws will not keep bad guys from committing crimes.  Has the sign with the little pistol with the slash through it ever stopped a crime from being committed in places where firearms are forbidden?  No, absolutely not!  There are still school shootings like the one yesterday in California or the school board shooting in Florida.  Even the shooting in Arizona would have most certainly turned out differently if the Safeway there had been “Concealed Carry” friendly.

At the end of the article, you said that officers are running into guns at a much higher rate now than  they did 20 years ago, “even on routine traffic stops.”

A clarification of your term “guns” would be helpful.  Are you speaking of the encyclopedia definition of a fully-automatic Military/Assault rifle, or a sporting AR-15 rifle, or are you speaking of the legal conceal carry pistols that law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry?  Well, there is a problem if what you are referring to is the legally permitted conceal carry or even a rifle or shotgun without a round in the chamber.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not Oklahoma law permit the transportation of firearms in the vehicle as long as there is not a round in the chamber?  Are you speaking of those type guns that are legal under Oklahoma law?

I want to respectfully challenge your statement about running into guns at a much higher rate now than twenty years ago.  I don’t know if you are from Oklahoma or how long you have been here, but when I was a teenager growing up here in Oklahoma, I remember seeing pickup trucks with gun racks carrying a rifle.  Our school would play other schools in smaller, more rural towns where it was common to see them even in the pickups of the boys we played in football.  That’s Oklahoma, Chief!  Go back and study the statistics of shootings in smaller, rural towns.  I am sure that you will find that while the guns in the back windows of pickups were common, the shootings were few and far between.

Oklahomans, in general, are good people, Chief.  The majority of us are law-abiding citizens.

We respectfully reserve the right to keep and bear our arms, even our AR’s, protecting ourselves and our families.  It is our state Constitutional right.  It is our U.S. Constitutional right.  And if either or both of them were to be taken away from us, it is our God-given right!

God forbid that those who would seek to disarm the citizens of the United States or the citizens of Oklahoma ever get their way here as they have elsewhere.  My personal sentiment is and my reaction will be that of Charlton Heston, “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!”

If our Oklahoma City police officers are truly outgunned, then let me help you get an AR in each of their patrol cars.  I would like to boldly suggest though that the real problem is not the style of guns that citizens are allowed to possess, but the illegal immigrants who are the cause of many such crimes.

Mr. Dean’s article completely overlooked the fact that Mr. Hector Mercado who had previously been deported and was in the country illegally was pulled over for a traffic violation.

May I remind you, Chief Citty, that after HB 1804 was passed, law enforcement offices all across the state were permitted to cross-train some or all of their officers and deputies with ICE agents to help apprehend and deport illegal aliens.  I would like to know if you have accepted this offer for Oklahoma City police.  I am further going to research to see if Sheriff Whetsel has allowed his deputies to be trained in this program.

I think that I can confidently speak for the majority of law-abiding citizens in the state of Oklahoma that they would much rather you focus your attention upon the much more pertinent issue of illegal immigrants in our state and in Oklahoma City than to try to fabricate illegitimate reasons to regulate the state and country’s lawful liberty to keep and to bear arms.

Sincerely your friend and servant,

Tom Vineyard, Pastor
Windsor Hills Baptist Church
5517 N.W. 23rd Street
Oklahoma City, OK  73127
(405) 943-3326

TV:sgb

 

Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF

11/29/10

Gun Owners of America as well as other respected Second Amendment organizations oppose Andrew Traver as the new head of the ATF for good reason.

The Truth about Guns writes on Aug 5, 2010:

Traver’s work with the IACP included signing off on a 2008 report prepared by the pro-gun control group The Joyce Foundation: Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Click here for the press release.

The IACP and Joyce are old pals. In 2006, the Foundation wrote a check to the police org for $174,788 to fund a regional summit. For the ’08 report, Traver’s name is in the sidebar on the right, as one of the members of the “advisory group.” Apparently, “the advisory group . . . made critical decisions throughout [the] summit and final report efforts.”

My article about the IACP and the Great Lakes Gun Summit;

The Joyce Foundation, the IACP and the UN Disarming the World . . .

Please read and take action on this one!

Gun Owners of America writes today;

Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF

— Ask your Senators to Support a Filibuster

Monday, November 29, 2010

It was not a good sign that Barack Obama kept his nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives a secret until after the midterm election –- and then quickly announced that anti-gun zealot Andrew F. Traver would be named to fill the slot.

After being blasted before November 2’s election by the liberal New York Times for failing to beef up the ATF by appointing a director –- for fear of the wrath of the “gun lobby” -– Obama gets right past the election and, presto chango, a nominee appears.  How ’bout that?

And not just any nominee.

As special agent in charge of Chicago’s ATF field division, Traver had taken the lead in calling for a ban on semiautomatic firearms.

And Chicago, of course, has been the epicenter of anti-gun government activism.  It is not surprising that Traver has also been active in the virulently anti-gun International Association of Chiefs of Police, which has worked to empower Handgun Control-type activists and has commissioned panels to:

* support one-gun-a-month and lock-up-your-safety laws, as well as “ballistic fingerprinting” files on all firearms;

* espouse an “effective” ban on .50-caliber firearms, and a redefinition of “armor-piercing” ammunition that could effectively ban handgun use;

* mandate gun-destruction policies for law enforcement and enhanced funding to go after guns;

* prohibit all private gun sales and make “prohibited persons” out of a much wider variety of persons committing simple misdemeanors;

* back a repeal of the Tiahrt amendment; and,

* allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry (through agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration).

It is disconcerting that ANY organization espousing these views would be taken seriously.  That an activist in such an organization would be put in charge of the ATF is truly troubling.

ACTION: Contact your Senators.  Urge them to support a filibuster of the Traver nomination to head the ATF.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

Go to GOA for mORE

Obama Administration Caves to Brady Campaign on Traver ATF Nomination

Aug 5, 2010

Buzz is the leading contender is Andrew Traver, who now heads the agency’s Chicago office.” Hang on; what’s with the “just 18 months” routine? Is mainjustice.com making excuses for President Obama? Meanwhile, here’s something you may not know about Traver or the ATF . . .

The ATF has been busy computerizing the records of ALL U.S. gun purchases—even though federal law specifically prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. And who do you think’s gung-ho on this effort? Barack’s man Traver.

. . .Oh wait! There’s Andy again, as a member of the anti-gun International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Oh look! The above picture shows Mr. Traver palling up with Palatine Mayor Rita Mullins (a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns) and Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Executive Director Thomas Mannard.

Read More

CCRKBA OPPOSES TRAVER NOMINATION TO HEAD BATFE

hursday, November 18th, 2010

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today is announcing its opposition to the nomination, by President Obama, of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Traver is currently special agent in charge of Chicago’s BATFE field division, where he has a history of working with gun prohibitionists. He served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police on that group’s 2007 “Gun Violence Reduction Project,” in cooperation with the anti-gun-rights Joyce Foundation. This project involved several high profile anti-gun-rights advocates, but there was not a single representative from the firearms community on the advisory panel.

“The nomination of Andrew Traver is more proof that Barack Obama has complete disregard for the Second Amendment and the rights of firearms owners,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We have serious concerns that the agency, under his leadership, will maintain any semblance of cooperation with the firearms industry, over which BATFE exercises considerable control.”

Traver helped develop the IACP/Joyce Foundation report, which recommended banning an array of modern sport-utility rifles and .50-caliber rifles used in long-range competition. The report also encouraged Congress to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment that protects sensitive trace data used by law enforcement in criminal investigations from being misued in frivolous municipal lawsuits that have consistently lost in court, and urged the adoption of restrictive gun show regulations that would effectively force them to close.

Read More

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

Charlotte, NC –-(Ammoland.com)- Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox

The NRA strongly opposes President Obama’s nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities.

This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers.

Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a “recess appointment,” in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly elected U.S. Senators.

Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) “Gun Violence Reduction Project,” a “partnership” with the Joyce Foundation.

NRA Opposes The Nomination Of Andrew Traver to Head BATFE

Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.

Fusion Centers, the IACP, Gun Control and HUBZones A4L Show Notes

OK-SAFE


Sign up for OK-Safe’s Action Alert Newsletter
_____________________________________________________

Listen to the show

audio



Governor Jesse Ventura Talks About The Police State. 3 Videos


OKOHS (Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security) is directed to continue their efforts in combating terrorism, and shall continue to oversee the implementation of any and all initiatives or efforts mandated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, including the development of a state information fusion center.

Background
In August 2002, the International Association of Chiefs of Police released the recommendations of its Criminal Intelligence Summit held March 7-8, 2002, with the final document coming from the DOJ’s office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The report acknowledged that the problems identified following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were found to be with “intelligence exchange between national agencies…” Then the report quickly endorsed the creation of a Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council to implement the National Intelligence Plan that would engage local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in a database sharing environment. The plan addressed the legal impediments to the effective transfer of criminal intelligence between authorized local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. This plan became the superstructure for the next domestic Fusion Center effort by advocating for the creation of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council and charged it with accomplishing a number of goals:

Read More

The Rise of the Fusion-Intelligence Complex: A critique of political surveillance after 9/11

Where did Fusion Centers Come From???

Immediately following the tragic events of 9/11, the IACP moved quickly to hold a national policy summit on terrorism and intelligence. The summit, sponsored by the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office and the IACP, was held in March of 2002. More than 120 law enforcement, justice, terrorism, and intelligence experts gathered in Alexandria, Virginia to create a national strategy to improve American law enforcement’s capacity to recognize, gather, analyze, share, and utilize criminal intelligence. Read More

Recent story on the IACP;

Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF


In March 2002, a year before DHS’ creation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police called for a national plan for sharing intelligence.

That recommendation led Justice’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) consortium to draft a National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan in October 2003.

The IACP also recommended against limiting intelligence sharing to terrorism-related data, suggesting instead that all “criminal intelligence” data be shared.  SOURCE EPIC

The IACP set 2 goals

#1 the establishment of “a coordinating council comprised of local, state, Tribal and Federal law enforcement executives … to oversee and implement the National Intelligence Plan.”

#2 is to “Address the legal impediments to the effective transfer of criminal intelligence between enforcement agencies.”

Those  “legal impediments” are the Bill of Rights and specifically the laws that were implemented in order to protect us from government spying as in COINTELPRO

The IACP and Intelligence Led Policing Post 911 Big Brother Gets Bigger

In the fall of 2001, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) held its annual conference in Toronto. Considering the events of September 11th, it was decided to organize an International Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit in Alexandria, VA, March 7-8, 2002; the topic was Criminal Intelligence Sharing: Overcoming Barriers to Enhance Domestic Security.


2004

“. . .unprecedented initiatives have been undertaken to reengineer the law enforcement intelligence function.”

The Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, 28 CFR 23  mandates that

“criminal intelligence systems … are utilized in conformance with the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.”

The IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center’s “Criminal Intelligence Model Policy,” in an appendix to the GIWG (Global Intelligence Working Group) Report, was revised in 2003 to incorporate the anticipated change to 28 CFR 23.

The anticipated change?  Replace “reasonable suspicion” with “reasonable indication” (From Big Brother Gets Bigger)

R.I.P.  28 C.F.R. part 23

2008. . .the Department of Justice has relaxed restrictions on when the Federal Bureau of Investigation can begin investigations, and worked to increase intelligence-sharing among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies as well as with federal (intelligence) agencies in ways that will compromise civil liberties (through a change in federal regulation 28 C.F.R. part 23).

Read more FBI Guidelines 28 C.F.R. part 23

Fusion Center Document Collection

The IACP- Gun Grabbers


The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46


the Joyce Foundation, UN and the IACP disarming the world…

Brady President Praises Police Chiefs After Release of New Report

Sep 19, 2007

Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called today’s report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities, a “clear road map from the nation’s police chiefs of steps we can take now to combat gun violence.”

“Our nation’s police are on the front lines in the fight for public safety. In this landmark report, police leaders are saying they are tired of the nation’s gun policies being held hostage by the special interest gun lobby,” Helmke said.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/929

International Association of Chiefs of Police and The Joyce Foundation Great Lakes Gun Summit 2007

America has accepted the communitarian premise of the “good of the community” over individual rights as evidenced throughout law and policy, especially since 9 11.  This is where that line of thinking leads us and it is antithetical to the philosophy of individual rights that this nation was founded upon.  If we do not insist on upholding this revolutionary precept of our nation, then we ought to not be surprised when we begin to resemble every other milksop so-called Democracy in the world.

**Special note to 2A people in Oklahoma.** Read “Janet Reno addresses the IACP”

1995-This is a internal International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) document that obtained by NRA.  It discusses in detail IACP plans to weaken or eliminate right-to-carry legislation in state legislatures.

Do Gun Shows Have Loopholes?

“The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.”

The study is called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” Waldron called it a “smoking gun” in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns. Anti-gun politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know as they campaign against the so-called “gun show loophole,” he said.

Read more

Gun Violence Reduction

I’m going to describe a group that recently demanded enactment of a sweeping federal gun control agenda.

Let’s see if you can guess who it is.

The group has 22,000 members in more than 100 countries. Membership categories include “city managers, highway safety specialists, psychologists, attorneys, coroners and management analysts,” among others. The group has offices in Europe and the Caribbean, and the group’s website describes its governing board in your choice of English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Is it a new United Nations disarmament agency? No, the group is the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), headquartered in the nation’s capital.

Chris Cox “Follow The Money”

WyGO says



IACP Document Collection

http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2332792

•Questions to Ask about Fusion Centers